UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4834

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ISABEL GONZALEZ, a/k/a Chabello, a/k/a Isabel Garcia,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:00-cr-00077-BO-1)

Submitted: July 17, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Raymond C. Tarlton, TARLTON LAW PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. 

May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Isabel Gonzalez appeals his conviction and 365-month sentence 

imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to import 

cocaine.* On appeal, he asserts that his guilty plea was not 

knowing or voluntary and that his sentence, imposed pursuant to 

the mandatory Guidelines system, violated United States v. Booker, 

543 U.S. 220 (2005). The Government asserts that Gonzalez’s 

sentencing challenge is barred by the waiver of appellate rights 

in his plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Gonzalez first argues that his plea was involuntary because 

the magistrate judge failed to explain to him during his plea 

colloquy that he had a right to an appointed attorney at trial 

when it became obvious that he had been abandoned by his lead 

counsel. Gonzalez contends that his lead attorney declined to 

continue representation when Gonzalez could not pay him and that 

local counsel, who represented him at his guilty plea hearing, was 

only paid a nominal fee and, therefore, had no incentive to go to 

trial. The fee allegations were not raised until Gonzalez’s 

collateral proceedings and were, therefore, not known to the

magistrate judge at the time of the plea colloquy. 

 * Gonzalez’s judgment was originally entered in 2001. 

However, pursuant to his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, the 

district court re-entered judgment in 2014 to permit Gonzalez to 

file a timely appeal. 
3

“In order for a guilty plea to be valid, the Constitution 

imposes ‘the minimum requirement that [the] plea be the voluntary 

expression of [the defendant’s] own choice.’” United States v. 

Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 278 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Brady v. 

United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)). “It must reflect a 

voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative choices of 

action open to the defendant.” Id. (citation and internal 

quotations omitted). “In evaluating the constitutional validity 

of a guilty plea, courts look to the totality of the circumstances 

surrounding [it], granting the defendant’s solemn declaration of 

guilt a presumption of truthfulness.” Id. (citation and internal 

quotations omitted).

In federal cases, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure “governs the duty of the trial judge before accepting a 

guilty plea.” Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 n.5 (1969). 

Rule 11 “requires a judge to address a defendant about to enter a 

plea of guilty, to ensure that he understands the law of his crime 

in relation to the facts of his case, as well as his rights as a 

criminal defendant.” United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 62 

(2002). This court “accord[s] deference to the trial court’s 

decision as to how best to conduct the mandated colloquy.” United 

States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). A guilty 

plea may be knowingly and intelligently made based on information 

received before the plea hearing. See id.; see also Bradshaw v. 
4

Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175, 183 (2005) (trial court may rely on counsel’s 

assurance that the defendant was properly informed of the elements 

of the crime). 

When, as here, a defendant does not seek to withdraw his 

guilty plea in the district court, we review any claims that the 

court erred at his guilty plea hearing for plain error. United 

States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir. 2002). It is 

Gonzalez’s burden to show (1) error; (2) that was plain; 

(3) affecting his substantial rights; and (4) that this court 

should exercise its discretion to notice the error. See id. at 

529. For prejudice, he “must show a reasonable probability that, 

but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United 

States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004).

Here, Gonzalez was informed that he was entitled to the 

assistance of counsel should he wish to go to trial, and he 

testified that he was satisfied with his attorney. He was given 

the opportunity to make statements or ask questions, and he 

declined to do so. In addition, the magistrate judge specifically 

discussed the details of the situation involving Gonzalez’s 

retained and local counsels to which the judge was privy; Gonzalez 

was fully informed regarding the status of his counsel, and he 

testified that he was completely satisfied. Moreover, he 

reiterated his satisfaction in the written “Entry and Acceptance 

of Guilty Plea.” Under such circumstances, the magistrate judge 
5

did not err (much less plainly err) in accepting Gonzalez’s guilty 

plea without further inquiry into his relationship with his 

attorney.

Next, Gonzalez contends that the magistrate judge erred by 

failing to determine whether Gonzalez read and signed his plea 

agreement prior to the Rule 11 hearing with the aid of a Spanish 

interpreter. Gonzalez avers that this error was compounded by the 

fact that the district court did not explain the concept of 

conspiracy in detail and that the case was very complex.

At the Rule 11 hearing with the aid of a Spanish interpreter, 

Gonzalez stated that he discussed the contents of the indictment 

with his attorney and that he fully understood the charges. His 

attorney stated that she had reviewed the charges with Gonzalez 

and was confident that he fully understood. Gonzalez declined to 

have the indictment read to him. Moreover, when the judge 

discussed the plea agreement, he provided the elements of the 

charged conspiracy to Gonzalez. 

We conclude that the magistrate judge did not commit plain 

error in failing to further examine Gonzalez regarding his 

understanding of the charges against him. There was simply nothing 

in the Rule 11 hearing alerting the judge to any lack of 

understanding on Gonzalez’s part requiring additional colloquy. 

Both Gonzalez and counsel stated that Gonzalez had been informed 

of the elements and understood them. Moreover, while Gonzalez now 
6

argues that he would have gone to trial, he does not explain how 

his alleged lack of understanding of the charges against him caused 

him to plead guilty. Under these circumstances and further given 

the lack of any showing of any prejudice, we determine that the 

magistrate judge did not plainly err in failing to more fully 

explore Gonzalez’s English language competency.

Finally, Gonzalez argues that the district court erred in 

treating the Guidelines as mandatory. The Government contends 

that Gonzalez waived the right to challenge his sentence. Gonzalez 

avers that the waiver was invalid given his short responses during 

the Rule 11 hearing and the lack of information as to the presence 

of an interpreter when the plea agreement was explained to him.

A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that waiver is 

knowing and intelligent. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 

169 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 

1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995) (determining whether a waiver is knowing 

and intelligent by examining the background, experience, and 

conduct of the defendant). Generally, if the district court fully 

questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal 

during the Rule 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and 

enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th 

Cir. 2005). The question of whether a defendant validly waived 

his right to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. 

Blick, 408 F.3d at 168.
7

Here, the district court fully complied with the requirements 

of Rule 11 during the plea colloquy and ensured that Gonzalez 

understood he was waiving his right to appeal his sentence. 

Gonzalez stated, with the aid of an interpreter, that he understood 

on more than one occasion. Accordingly, we find that Gonzalez’s 

waiver of appellate rights was knowing and intelligent. A plea

agreement’s appellate waiver accepted prior to Booker is not 

invalidated by the Booker decision. Id. at 170-73; see also

Johnson, 410 F.3d at 150-52 (rejecting the argument that a 

defendant cannot waive the right to an appeal based on subsequent 

changes in the law). Thus, we conclude that Gonzalez’s appellate 

waiver is valid and enforceable and that Gonzalez’s sentencing 

argument is within the scope of that waiver. See Blick, 408 F.3d 

at 170 (holding that Booker claim is one that relates to the manner 

in which a sentence is imposed).

Based on the foregoing, we affirm Gonzalez’s conviction and 

dismiss the appeal of his sentence. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART